The main legal point established in the judgment is that while an unregistered document may be inadmissible for certain purposes, it could still be received in evidence for collateral purposes, and the court should consider objections and pronounce judgment on merits.

( 1 ) THE revision is filed against the order dated 15-12-1998 passed by the trial Judge on the admissibility of document dated 24-6-1982 which is styled as "asthivibagada Vadambadike Kararu" which was sought to be marked by the defendant in his evidence. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is, whether the impugned order holding that document dated 24-6-1982 cannot be received in evidence before the Court of law for want of stamp duty and registration is proper.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a Suit O. S. 1045/94 for the relief of declaration declaring that the plaintiff is having half share in the suit schedule property and for partition and separate possession of his share by metes and bounds and for other consequential reliefs. His case was that under a registered partition deed dated 6-2-1968 all the properties of the joint family were divided between the plaintiff, the defendant and their father. In the said partition "a" schedule properties fell to the share of the father, "b" schedule properties fell to the share of the defendant and "c" schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiff. There was a specific recital in the partition deed that on the demise of the father, the plaintiff and defendant should divide the "a" schedule properties belonging to the father equally. Father died in the year 1983. Thereafter, defendant refused to effect partition of "a" schedule properties and therefore he was constrained to file the suit. In the defence set up the registered partition deed between the parties was admitted. After the death of the father, it was alleged that there was a settlement under a deed dated 24-6-1982 under which the plaintiff and defendant have agreed to give rent to the father and the mother and in pursuance of the family settlement the properties were divided between the plaintiff and defendant and accordingly the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the defendant. It is also pleaded that the defendant had filed O. S. 43/86 against the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction and in the said suit document dated 24-6-1982 was marked after overruling the objection of the plaintiff and the said suit came to be decreed after trial. It is after the decreeing of the suit, the present suit is filed praying for partition and separate possession of half share in the father's share of the property.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF has adduced evidence and closed his side. The defendant while deposing he wanted to produce the deed dated 24-6-1982. The plaintiff objected to the marking of the said document on the ground that it is a partition deed. It is not duly stamped and that it requires registration and therefore it cannot be marked. The learned trial Judge after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, after going through the document has come to the conclusion that the document in question is not properly stamped and registered as required under the statute and therefore, it cannot be received in evidence. Thus, he has upheld the objection raised by the plaintiff in marking of the said document. It is this order which is challenged in this revision.

( 4 ) SRI Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the said order submitted firstly that the document which is now sought to be produced in evidence was produced in the earlier suit between the parties and the plaintiff herein objected to the said document on the ground of the same being insufficiently stamped and not registered and after considering the rival contentions the said objection was overruled and the said document was marked and therefore that finding operates as res judicata in the present suit and the court below ought not to have refused to mark the said document. Secondly he contended what is sought to be produced in the present proceedings is the certified copy of the said document marked in the earlier proceedings and therefore no exception could be taken to